This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, it has been ruled that whether a person is negligent or not is a question of fact which this Court cannot pass upon in a petition for review on certiorari, as its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law.[10] This Court is not bound to weigh all over again the evidence adduced by the parties, particularly where the findings of both the trial and the appellate courts on the matter of petitioners' negligence coincide. As a general rule, therefore, the resolution of factual issues is a function of the trial court, whose findings on these matters are binding on this Court, more so where these have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals,[11]save for the following exceptional and meritorious circumstances: (1) when the factual findings of the appellate court and the trial court are contradictory; (2) when the findings of the trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (3) when the lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (6) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (7) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; and (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[12] | |||||
|
2012-06-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the RTC found said witnesses to be credible and therefore their testimonies deserve full faith and credence. The CA for its part, did not disturb the trial court's appreciation of the same. It is a well-entrenched doctrine "that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties."[31] Though jurisprudence recognizes highly meritorious exceptions, none of them obtain herein which would warrant a reversal of the challenged Decision. Thus, the Court accords deference to the trial court's appreciation of said testimonies. Accordingly, the RTC's finding of petitioner's guilt, as affirmed by the CA, is sustained. | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is a well-entrenched doctrine that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and are conclusive between the parties and even on this Court.[10] Nonetheless, jurisprudence recognizes highly meritorious exceptions, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; and (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[11] It is noteworthy that none of these exceptions which would warrant a reversal of the assailed decision obtains herein. | |||||